Gun bill aimed at mocking Obamacare

Posted: Feb 04, 2011 8:54 PM EST Updated: Feb 04, 2011 8:54 PM EST

A South Dakota republican introduced a bill that would require all South Dakotans who are over the age of 21 to purchase a gun for protection.

But the bill is actually mocking the healthcare bill known as Obamacare.

Sioux Falls House Representative Hal Wick introduced a bill this week that would require South Dakotans to own guns for protection and he says introducing this bill was actually to prove a point.

"The purpose of the bill is to draw attention to the fact that that makes as much sense as Obamacare does in ordering people to buy healthcare. It's not constitutional and there are people who will argue it is," Wick said.

But some people in Sioux Falls think introducing the gun bill was a waste of time.
"I think it's a big waste of money and I think we should be spending money on more important things than passing this," Kyle Collins said.

Wick disagrees.

"The only ones who are saying anything bad are why waste time but it's not a waste of time if we can stop this bill," Wick says.

And that's what Wick is trying to do.

"Obamacare causes medicaid to go up. Right now we have 111,000 people on medicaid and the low estimate for what Obama's healthcare bill would cause is another 29,000 people going on medicaid in South Dakota," Wick said.

And Wick says that would increase sales tax, something South Dakota and the nation can't afford.

"It wouldn't waste time if it bankrupts the state and frankly it could bankrupt the nation and we can't afford it," Wick said.

The gun bill will be heard on February 16 when it goes to the House Committee.

http://www.ksfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=13974558&clienttype=printable

Texas Lawmakers Aim For Guns On College Campuses

by John Burnett

Is the answer to mass shootings on college campuses to arm students and staff? Eight states are considering legislation that would allow people to carry a concealed handgun into the lecture hall, the library, or the dorm. Ground zero for the debate is Texas where a proposed law would remove "premises of higher education" as gun-free zones.

"Right now, so-called gun-free zones, I think, ought to be renamed Victims Zones," says State Sen. Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio), who is sponsoring a bill that would allow handguns on campuses. "I just don't want to see a repeat in Texas of what happened at Virginia Tech."

Wentworth was referring to the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, where a student killed 32 people on campus and injured many others before turning the gun on himself.

Last September, the University of Texas at Austin had its own scare. A 19-year-old math major named Colton Tooley, wearing a dark suit and ski mask, started shooting an AK-47 assault weapon in the air, then ran into a library and committed suicide. No one else was shot. Campus police were praised for their quick response.

Wentworth and other supporters of the proposed law say a citizen with a handgun can possibly take out a campus shooter before police arrive "because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Two years ago, Texas lawmakers rejected a bill allowing concealed-carry on campus. Since then, Republicans have gained a supermajority in the legislature, and the controversial law has come back stronger than ever.

With 50,000 students, the University of Texas at Austin is one of the biggest schools in the country. Two years ago, the student government, faculty council and President Bill Powers came out against the bill to permit hidden pistols in university buildings. It's legal for license holders to carry on the campus grounds. Powers says his position has not changed.

"Friday night comes on our campus once a week," he says. "Mixing youth, handguns and partying is, in my view, a mix for serious concerns about safety on campus."
On a recent morning, Corey Zipperer, a 21-year-old UT psychology major, came down to the state Capitol to lobby officials to pass the bill. He's a spokesman for the Longhorn chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, and discreetly straps on a .38 special.

"We get the mature thing a lot, that college students aren't mature enough. And the alcohol thing, that we're all just boozed up all the time," Zipperer says.

In Texas, he points out, to get a concealed handgun license you must be 21 years old, have a clean record and no psychiatric disorders, and take a 10-hour instruction course that includes time at a firing range.

"So if people think that 21 year olds are too immature to get a license, it sounds like they have a problem with the whole concept," he says.

When John Woods came to Austin for graduate school from Virginia Tech, he thought he'd left behind the rampage that killed two of his friends. When the Texas legislature took up guns on campuses, Woods, a 26-year-old biology graduate student, stepped forward to become a leading voice opposing the bill.

"People think of colleges as just being classrooms, but there's a lot more going on here," he says. "We have hospitals on campus, in some cases there are preschools, sensitive labs where there are hazardous materials.

"And this is also something where the legislature is taking away higher education institution's abilities to make any policy on the issue."

At a table inside the student union, when math major Logan Healey was asked about the proposed conceal-carry law, he became sarcastic: "So, our suggestion to stop people from bringing guns to campus is to allow other students to bring guns to campus so we can have gunfights."

His friend Bethany Ellerbrook chimed in: "That's an awful idea. I hate it."

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence reports that 22 states have rejected similar legislation. One that did not is Utah, where the University of Utah in Salt Lake City has had a concealed-weapon carry law for five years.

"I'd say the vast majority of our student body doesn't even know about that law, or if somebody does have a handgun in class, I bet you 95 percent of the people would never know about it," says Chase Jardine, president of the student body.

Asked his own opinion, he says he's indifferent: "It's just not a topic people talk about."

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133466058/texas-lawmakers-aim-for-guns-on-college-campuses

Mayor Bloomberg's Arizona Gun Show P.R. Stunt

By John Lott

Published February 02, 2011

FoxNews.com

New York City's murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault rates rose last year according to preliminary FBI data, with murders alone increasing by more than 12 percent. But instead of concentrating on crime in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg just spent $100,000 of the NYPD's budget sending police to Arizona to buy guns at a gun show.

The "sting" was a waste of money that misleads Americans and did nothing to reduce crime. Talk about an aggressive publicity stunt. Arizona officials had not been informed of the operation, which meant that any potential crimes uncovered by the New York City officers could not be prosecuted.

But, instead of spending $100,000, Bloomberg could have learned what he did for the price of a phone call or an Internet search. Arizonans, like residents in 31 other states, can buy guns from private individuals without a criminal background check, just an Arizona driver's license to demonstrate residency. However, if they sell a gun to someone who they suspect will use it to commit a crime, they risk becoming liable for that crime.

John Feinblatt, a Bloomberg adviser, asserted: “The background check system failed in Arizona, it failed in Virginia and it fails in states around the country. If we don’t fix it now, the question is not whether another massacre will occur, but when.”

Nevertheless, background checks on the private sales of guns would have failed to stop the Tucson, Arizona shooting because the killer, Jared Loughner, passed his
background check at a gun store. He had never been convicted of a crime, never been adjudicated as being a danger to himself or others, and he had not been involuntarily committed for mental illness. Thus, he would have been able to get a gun in any state, including New York, where he had been a resident.

Background checks do not stop bad guys from getting guns. Instead, the Brady Act background checks for gun purchases, in place since 1994, are a problem for law-abiding citizens. Hardly ever do background checks deny guns to criminals. Over 99.9 percent of purchases initially flagged as being illegal under the law were later determined to be misidentified.

Take the numbers for 2008, the latest year with data available. The 78,906 initial denials resulted in only 147 cases involving banned individuals trying to purchase guns. Of those 147 cases, prosecutors thought the evidence was strong enough to prosecute only 105, and they won convictions in just 43. But few of these 43 cases involved career criminals or those who posed real threats. The typical case was someone who had a misdemeanor conviction for an offense he didn't realize prevented him from buying a gun.

It is hardly surprising that not a single academic study by economists or criminologists has found that the Brady Act or any state background checks has reduced violent crime. Even those who aren't prevented from buying a gun face delays in getting approved. Eight percent of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System checks are "not resolved immediately."

Five percent of those checks take up to 3 business days, and 3 percent take even longer, though these further delays can't stop one from obtaining a gun at that point.
For gun shows, such background checks would be more than a nuisance because gun shows usually only last for a single weekend. Preventing the sale for that long often means that the transaction will not be able to take place.

According to my research, imposing this requirement cuts down the number of gun shows by about 20 percent. The incorrect denials and delays could be a real safety problem for those who are being stalked or threatened and need protection quickly.

Contrary to public perception, very few criminals obtain their guns from gun shows.

This was shown in an extensive survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 1997, with interviews of 18,000 state prison inmates. Only a trivial 0.7 percent indicated that they had obtained their guns at a gun show. Including flea markets, the total rises to just 1.7 percent.

Instead, the overwhelming majority of guns that criminals obtain come either from "friends and family" (40 percent) or "on the street or from illegal sources" (39 percent).
The undercover operation run by Mayor Bloomberg also plays into the entire mythology that has developed around the 33 round magazine based on the claim that Loughner only had to reload because he ran out of bullets.

In fact, the killer’s gun jammed precisely because he used such a large capacity magazine. The long spring used in this high capacity magazines simply didn’t have enough force to properly push the last couple of bullets into the gun. Given that it can take just a couple of seconds to replace a magazine, the killer would have likely been able to fire more rounds if he had brought several smaller magazines.

Mr. Bloomberg makes a big deal about the guns purchased at the guns shows as having characteristics desired by criminals: great stopping power, light weight, concealable. But those are all characteristics that law-abiding citizens value. A small, 120 pound woman will value stopping a 200 pound male criminal before he can grab her.

The 6.2 million Americans who legally carry concealed handguns value light weight concealable guns.

Mr. Bloomberg's P.R. stunt did nothing to stop crime. Wasting $100,000 is bad enough. Today he demanded that the federal government itself spend even more money enforcing these laws.

Hopefully, Americans won't follow his policies and end up wasting lots more money on policies that divert police resources and time from things that do work.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/02/mayor-bloombergs-arizona-gun-pr-stunt/

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of the just released revised edition of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2010).

ATF gunrunning probe strategy scrutinized after death of Border Patrol agent

By James V. Grimaldi and Sari Horwitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 1, 2011; 11:03 PM

 
Two AK-47 assault rifles purchased by a man later arrested in a federal gunrunning investigation turned up at the scene of a fatal shooting of a Border Patrol agent in December, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

Whistleblowers who have contacted a U.S. senator allege that federal agents allowed guns, including the AK-47s, to be sold to suspected straw buyers who transported the weapons throughout the region and into Mexico.

Law enforcement investigators have not concluded whether either of the guns was used to kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, said a law enforcement source who requested anonymity because the case is ongoing.

Terry, 40, was killed in a gun battle Dec. 14 along the border southwest of Tucson. He was part of an elite Border Patrol team that had been patrolling a canyon frequented by bandits who ambush and rob illegal immigrants. Four men were arrested, but no one has been charged in the killing. A fifth man eluded police.

The AK-47s have become part of a multi-agency federal investigation code-named Fast and Furious, part of a southwest border crackdown on firearms known as Project Gunrunner. The agent's death led one member of Congress to criticize Project Gunrunner and has also roiled officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who are fighting to save funding for the program.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a member of the Judiciary Committee, wrote to ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson on Friday that he had "serious concerns that the ATF may have become careless, if not negligent, in implementing the Gunrunner strategy."

Grassley declined to comment on the letter, and an ATF spokesman declined to comment because the investigation is open.

ATF and other federal officials had previously said the Fast and Furious case represents a major success in going after large gun-smuggling networks.

Last week, U.S. Attorney Dennis K. Burke announced that 34 people had been indicted in five cases, breaking up a network linked to the Sinoloa drug-trafficking cartel in Mexico. "The massive size of this operation sadly exemplifies the magnitude of the problem," Burke said.

In the past month, whistleblowers contacted Grassley and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to allege that the "ATF sanctioned the sale of hundreds of assault weapons to suspected straw purchasers, who then allegedly transported these weapons throughout the southwestern border area and into Mexico," Grassley wrote in his letter to Melson.

According to the letter, one of the individuals bought three rifles with cash Jan. 16, 2010, in Glendale, Ariz. Two of those rifles were allegedly used in the firefight with Terry and other Border Patrol agents. "These extremely serious allegations were accompanied by detailed documentation which appears to lend credibility to the claims and partially corroborates them," Grassley said.

The letter matched details in one of the indictments unsealed last week, which alleges that Jamie Avila Jr. bought three AK-47-type firearms on that date from Lone Wolf Trading Co. in Glendale. Officials at a news conference said Avila took part in a gunrunning scheme to take 700 weapons across the border between September 2009 and December 2010.

Court records do not indicate that the agents deliberately allowed weapons to cross the border into Mexico. On at least two occasions, agents stopped and seized arms shipments headed for the border.

Lone Wolf issued a statement in defense of the ATF, stating that the agents operated "in a very professional and proper manner."

The Fast and Furious case was one of the biggest gun trafficking cases since Project Gunrunner began in 2006. It was seen by the ATF as a response to criticism from the Justice Department's inspector general that the firearms bureau was bringing too many minor cases against straw purchasers, individuals who buy guns for others or traffickers.

On Monday, Grassley wrote Melson again after an ATF official confronted an agent in the Phoenix field office, accusing him of misconduct for contacting the Senate committee. Grassley called the response retaliation and said, "This is exactly the wrong sort of reaction for the ATF."

grimaldij@washpost.com horwitzs@washpost.com

Mayor Bloomberg's undercover gun stings get results - and gripes in Tucson

BY Erin Einhorn
DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU

More than three dozen gun shows have cleaned up their act after Mayor Bloomberg staged undercover sting operations exposing illegal sales.

Private detectives hired by the city in 2009 were able to buy guns at seven shows despite telling the sellers they probably couldn't pass a background check.

Since then, the mayor said Monday that four of the gun show operators have agreed to require all buyers to submit to background checks - and one has vowed changes at all 34 of his shows.

It's an improvement, Bloomberg said, but it affects only a fraction of the nation's roughly 2,000 annual gun shows.

"Because of the lack of background checks, gun shows have really become magnets for criminals," Bloomberg said. "If you have a criminal record, a history of drug abuse or even if your name appears on a terrorist watch list, you can still walk into a gun show and buy a 9-mm. in the time it would take to buy a hamburger and fries at McDonalds."
The mayor last week launched a campaign to close the so-called gun show loophole.

This week, he announced his latest gun show sting at the Crossroads of the West show in Tucson that took place Jan. 23, two weeks after a crazed gunman killed six people at an Arizona shopping center - wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Detectives from the Kroll agency caught at least one gun seller at the Tucson show making a sale with a man who said he couldn't pass a background check.

Crossroads of the West does not appear willing to change any of its policies. A spokeswoman sent a statement condemning Bloomberg's sting.

"Mayor Bloomberg and his 'task force' have no legal authority in the state of Arizona, or in any other place in America except New York City," the statement said. "These forays into America's heartland committing blatant acts to entrap otherwise innocent gun owners is an unlawful scheme."
eeinhorn@nydailynews.com

Cuts threaten ATF's efforts to stem flow of guns south
By James V. Grimaldi and Sari Horwitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, January 31, 2011; A01

 
About three weeks before the deadly shootings in Tucson renewed a national debate about gun control, the White House budget office proposed steep cuts for the agency charged with enforcing federal gun laws.

When officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives saw the proposal, they concluded it would effectively eliminate a major initiative in the fight against firearms trafficking on the Mexican border, according to people familiar with the budget process but not authorized to speak on the record.

Project Gunrunner is a signature effort by the Obama administration to assist Mexico in stemming the flow of guns south of the border. Under the project, federal officials in Arizona last week arrested more than a dozen people named in a 53-count indictment alleging that a network of gun buyers and smugglers had planned to ship hundreds of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.

Dubbed "Fast and Furious," the investigation found traffickers purchasing 10, 20, 30 or 40 AK-47-style rifles at a time from gun shops in the Phoenix area. On one day in April, a couple now charged in the case paid $18,000 and walked out of a retail store with three .50-caliber, armor-piercing Barrett sniper rifles.

The proposed ATF cutbacks, which would amount to nearly $160 million out of a $1.25 billion budget request - a 12.8 percent reduction that would also be 3.6 percent below the current budget - are outlined in a preliminary budget document obtained by The Washington Post. ATF spokesman Scot Thomasson declined to comment, because the budget process was not complete.

Administration officials said it is unclear how deep the cuts ultimately will be, since the proposal was an early draft and is likely to change. But to some current and former ATF officials, the fact that budget officials contemplated the reductions is an indication of how low the agency ranks in the Obama administration's pecking order.

"ATF is the ugly stepchild of every administration," said James Cavanaugh, a former senior ATF official who retired last year after three decades. "It would really handicap the ATF. It's a small agency and it's a lean machine. There are not a lot of agents and inspectors. There is not a lot of fat. With ATF, it would be an amputation."

All federal agencies are facing a difficult budget year, with House Republicans calling for cuts of 30 percent or more. But law enforcement is generally more protected than most agencies. For example, the FBI is facing a 0.46 percent cut against its current budget.

Officials with the Office of Management and Budget did not return repeated calls last week.

Obama quiet on guns


Some agency officials held out hope that Obama, whose campaign promised tougher gun laws, would support their mission and budget, and strengthen their legal tools.
In addition to the contemplated budget reductions, the president has yet to make substantive comments about firearms policy - even after the Jan. 8 tragedy in Tucson that left six dead and 13 wounded.

In his State of the Union speech last week, Obama referred to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was shot in the head and seriously wounded, and 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green, who was killed. But the president disappointed gun-control organizations by avoiding the topic of gun regulation. After the speech, White House spokesmen said Obama would address gun policy at a later date.

Lawmakers who favor tighter firearms laws have proposed new restrictions, particularly on high-capacity gun magazines such as the one used in the Tucson shootings. But there is little indication the Obama administration is eager to embrace the proposals, which are fiercely opposed by the gun lobby.

The National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation both said the actions of a "madman" should not cause restrictions that would affect law-abiding gun owners.

"Once again, you and your freedoms are being blamed for the acts of a deranged madman, who sent signal after signal that he was dangerous," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said in an e-mail to members last week.

LaPierre's comment suggested problems with the backgroundcheck system, which is supposed to prevent felons and the mentally ill from purchasing firearms. The NRA in recent years has supported increased appropriations to ensure that the checks are "instant."

There might be some common ground for changes to the background check system. Even a pro-gun lawmaker is calling for an audit of the federal background check system for gun buyers. Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), a former NRA board member with an A rating from the group, joined Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a gun-control advocate, in asking the Government Accountability Office to look at the system. Republican House Judiciary Committee staffers also plan to question FBI officials who oversee the system.

In addition to those proposals, ATF officials before Tucson asked the White House to approve an emergency rule to crack down on gunrunning to Mexico by requiring gun dealers to report bulk sales of semiautomatic rifles. The proposal was announced in December, and ATF had asked the Office of Management and Budget to approve the rule by Jan. 4. A Justice Department spokesman said he expects the White House to approve the rule this week.

If implemented, the rule would require gun dealers in four states - Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas - to report to ATF sales of two or more "assault rifles" to the same buyer in a five-day period. The affected weapons would be semiautomatic rifles of .22 caliber and above with detachable magazines. Semiautomatic rifles such as AK-47s and AR-15s are favored weapons of Mexican drug cartels. Dealers nationwide already are required to report bulk handgun sales.

In addition to the uncertainty about its budget and enforcement regimen, ATF has been without a director since 2006, when Congress first required Senate confirmation for the position. Every nominee since has been held up in the Senate over problems raised by the gun lobby, which opposes Obama's nominee, Andy Traver, the bureau's special agent in charge in Chicago.

Former ATF director Bradley A. Buckles said the lack of a permanent director hurts ATF at budget time. "Undertaking the budget without a director is like fighting with one hand tied behind your back," he said.

The budget document says the proposed cuts to ATF are meant to eliminate duplication in explosives investigations, which the Justice Department last year divided between two agencies.

"FBI and ATF perform essentially the same functions regarding explosives, with the exception of licensee inspections," the document said.

ATF officials fear the proposed cuts would harm the Project Gunrunner border initiative because federal rules require the last hired to be laid off first, and most new hiring at the agency has been put toward the Southwest border effort. ATF has already moved funds from explosives work to the border initiative, sources said.

Those affected would include personnel in Mexico, where agents are helping Mexican officials trace guns seized by police in the bloody drug wars, the sources said. More than 65,000 guns have been traced back to sales in the United States.

Criticism of project


The Justice Department inspector general criticized Project Gunrunner for "significant weaknesses." It said that 68 percent of the project's investigations "are single-defendant cases, and some ATF managers discourage field personnel from conducting the types of complex conspiracy investigations that target higher-level members of trafficking rings."

ATF officials said that they are taking heed of the criticisms and that the budget cuts are looming at a time when their border efforts are making progress.

"Mexican drug lords go shopping for war weapons in Arizona," U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke said at a news conference in Phoenix last week to announce the bust of the alleged gunrunning ring.

According to the indictment, ATF officials determined that more than 600 of the 700 guns purchased by the network had come from a single U.S. gun store, Lone Wolf Trading Co. in Glendale, Ariz., a Phoenix suburb. Lone Wolf was not charged with any wrongdoing.

Last year, The Post reported that Lone Wolf ranked first among U.S. stores with the most guns traced to Mexican crime scenes, with 185 firearms traced to Mexico over a two-year period.

In a strip mall next to a spa, Lone Wolf features mounted animal heads on walls and model airplanes hanging from the ceiling. A sign last fall behind the cash register advertised AK-47s for $499. With about 1,515 crime guns traced, Lone Wolf ranked eighth overall on the list of U.S. guns stores with firearms traced from crimes. The rank is a jump from No. 61 on the 2004 list of gun stores that sold firearms traced to crimes.
Last year, 12 people were indicted on charges of making false statements in order to buy 17 AK-47-type rifles headed to Mexico. The guns were purchased from seven stores, including Lone Wolf. Owner Andre Howard could not be reached for comment.

ATF officials said they have no indication that Lone Wolf has done anything wrong in any of the cases.

Bill Newell, special agent in charge of the ATF Phoenix office, said last week that the "Fast and Furious" investigation was "further proof of the relentless efforts by Mexican drug cartels, especially the Sinaloa Cartel, to illegally acquire large quantities of firearms in Arizona and elsewhere in the U.S."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/30/AR2011013004670_pf.html

NRA doesn't scuttle new laws by lobbying, but by magnifying the clout of single-issue swing voters

BY Steven Hill

Sunday, January 30th 2011, 4:00 AM

For all the outrage over the Tucson massacre, everyone knows that sentiment will not translate into common sense gun control laws. Even President Obama, for most of his career a supporter of restrictions on firearms possession, has failed on two occasions - his Tucson and State of the Union speeches - to mention one of the most obvious reforms, the banning of semiautomatic weapons like Jared Lee Loughner's Glock and the high-capacity clip he used.

Obama has completely reneged on his gun-related campaign promises, earning him an "F" grade from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Why the about-face? National polls show a majority of Americans support bans on assault weapons and semiautomatics like the Glock. Yet as with so many other issues, majority support does not lead to government action. How can there be such an ongoing disconnect between public opinion and public policy?

Many gun control advocates blame it on the power wielded by the National Rifle Association and its campaign war chest. That's a simplistic diagnosis. The fact is that the NRA has power not because of the deep pockets of its political action committee, but because of the fundamental architecture of our antiquated political system.

First, we elect two senators per state regardless of population, and elect a President via an electoral college system that gives disproportionate power to less populous parts of the country, which tend to favor gun rights.

Second, our presidential, statewide and key congressional elections elect officeholders in individual contests in which one side wins or loses everything. That gives overwhelming power to a tiny minority of people known as "swing voters." New York City previously used multi-seat districts elected by proportional representation instead of winner-take-all contests for its old school board elections, and even for the City Council back in the 1940s. That method did not overreward swing voters.

That's vitally important to understand, because it turns out that pro-gun voters are also very often swing voters - meaning, they're among that 5% of people whose votes could change sides in a close election. Many are classic Reagan Democrats and union members. These NRA voters form a potent single-issue voting bloc.

Moreover, these pro-gun voters live disproportionately in 15 key battleground states and 40 battleground U.S. House districts. So they effectively determine the handful of seats and presidential contests won by razor-thin margins. As Republican strategist and NRA board member Grover Norquist has said, "You can always get a certain percentage to say they are in favor of some gun controls. But are they going to vote on their 'control' position? ... For that 4% to 5% who care about guns, they will vote on this."

In other words, the NRA's influence comes from its capacity to precisely target its supporters in critical places, like squares on a checkerboard. Up to one-fifth of union members in battleground states are NRA members, and union leaders are not afraid of the NRA's money. They are afraid of agitating their own pro-gun members in key swing races. With third parties rarely viable, it's a zero-sum game on Election Day. If pro-gun voters are wary of the Democrats, they'll vote Republican.

It is conventional wisdom among Democratic Party insiders that strong support for gun control has backfired, mobilizing NRA supporters and costing them elections in key swing races. They believe that Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in the 2000 presidential election because he was on the wrong side on guns. To counteract that, in 2004 the patrician John Kerry ridiculously trumpeted his own prowess as a gun owner.
The insider wisdom is right - to a point. Yes, touting gun control is politically dangerous for Democrats. But it's not because the NRA is such a potent lobbying force or has so much campaign cash.

The real problem is that the very nature of our two-party, winner-take-all elections allows a small faction of gun control opponents - just like anti-Castro diehards in Florida - to form a potent voting bloc that far outweighs their minority status.
American pundits often portray multiparty democracies elected by proportional representation, such as Israel and Italy, as being beholden to tiny political parties of extremists who hold hostage their coalition governments. They fail to see how the dynamics of our own system allow well-organized political minorities to push their agendas on the mainstream - and make America resistant to many vital reforms.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/01/30/2011-01-30_why_gun_control_is_a_nonstarter.html

Hill is a political writer and author of "10 Steps to Repair American Democracy."